Are AU 58 coins among the most eye appealing and if so, WHY??

Boom · July 1, 2007 1:15PM

I think it would be safe to say that the Majority of us that submit or have submitted raw coins for grading, here at PCGS, has purchased and submitted what we truly perceived to BE MS coins, sent them in and were completely confounded when they came back graded PCGS AU 58.

I know I did. I bought two gorgeous coins at a local shop several years ago and just knew I had picked two cherries. Of the two, the one that I thought would grade higher, mind you AFTER a thorough "in hand" examination, WITH A 5X, came back PCGS AU 58 while the one I thought was the lesser of the two came back PCGS 65.

IMHO, many AU 58s are among some of the prettiest coins around. They have fooled and will continue to fool many an experienced eye and I have arrived at a theory "Why" this is and will probably share it with you later, for what it's worth, if I remember.

Those among us that have made such mistakes, have paid to learn the HARD WAY but wound up having better eyes because of PCGS standards. Agree or disagree? My Vote - Yes because I have not made that mistake since.

Ever wonder how or why AU 58 pieces, in many cases, "look" better than most MS 60-63 graded coins?

Are, generally speaking, AU 58s some of the prettiest coins around? Agree or disagree?

If you care to, please share your thoughts and or experiences in the hopes that others may benefit from such.

Thanx.

SilverEagles92 · July 1, 2007 1:18PM

PQ AU58 coins are out there. A MS67 coin can be graded AU58 because of the slightest wear. Without the wear, it's a MS67 coin still.

But, there are ugly counterparts. Some AU58's are very chattery and rubbed all over. You just have to keep an eye out and know what to look for.

JoeLewis · July 1, 2007 1:19PM

The way I see it, you take an MS69 coin and put the slightes rub on it and viola AU58. Now, that coin still looks MS69!

Darkmane · July 1, 2007 1:19PM

Low MS coins (60-62 or so) are not graded by wear, but by distractions, strike, eye appeal, etc.

AU coins are graded so due to wear.

The end result is that AU58 coins can be much more attractive than low MS coins.... they're just stuck in lower holders due to wear. Some AU58 coins, on the other hand, are dogs.

ccex · July 1, 2007 1:20PM

I agree that many of the the most eye appealing coins are graded AU-58. However, most AU-58 coins are not among the most eye-appealing (but usually much nicer than what they call MS-60 or 61 today).

JoeLewis · July 1, 2007 1:28PM

<< I agree that many of the the most eye appealing coins are graded AU-58. However, most AU-58 coins are not among the most eye-appealing (but usually much nicer than what they call MS-60 or 61 today). >>

I've been looking at as many AU58 trade dollars that I could in the past week, and that one grade definitely has a huge variance in eye appeal!

oldcameoproofsguy · July 1, 2007 1:35PM

AU58 may cover a wide spectrum of eye appeal. It is also my favorite grade to collect most of the time.
I always hold out for the most attractive au58 that I can. Mark free, nice color, great luster can all be found in au58 as well as marked up, terrible color and terrible luster. It usually just requires patience.

Fairlaneman · July 1, 2007 1:36PM

No because AU58 coins have luster loss and luster is king.

Ken

Artist · July 1, 2007 1:58PM

The most expensive coins in my UNC 20th Century Type Set are the gold issues, and consequently I put special emphasis on learning about them prior to making my purchases. Generally speaking, I have found that if those coins show evidence of any kind of friction across the high points, that it gets interpreted as "wear" and causes the coin to grade AU58; however, once those same abrasions cross into the fields they immediately come to be regarded as bag marks and such and cause the coin to grade to MS60-63. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE OF THE INDIAN HEAD $2.50 and $5.00 ISSUES.

Incedentally, the reason I collect mostly UNC coins is because I take a special interest coin design, and have always equated wear with its absence. A coin I hope to own in the not so far off future is a $3.00 piece, and in preparation for this purchase I have already looked at dozens of coins in person and thousands more online. This coin in particular poses an interesting challenge to my previous bias' regarding design and wear, in that strike quality can very dramatically from coin to coin - as often as not, AU58s that are sharply struck are are far more detailed and intricate design-wise than softly struck UNCs that if not for their luster might otherwise be confused for boarderline XFs.

Boom · July 1, 2007 8:31PM

Interesting variety of answers. Thanx for taking the time to share your thoughts.

ziggy29 · July 1, 2007 10:31PM

<< No because AU58 coins have luster loss and luster is king. >>

A properly graded 58 will only have the slightest luster breaks on the points where a very small amount of wear exists. If loss of luster is easily discernible on a coin slabbed as 58, it's almost certainly overgraded.

That's where the challenge comes in: finding nice 58s that are all there for the grade, that aren't overgraded 53s and 55s, and which haven't been cracked out to be market graded as 62s and 63s. And when you find them, you'll likely pay 62 money for it anyway.

DHeath · July 1, 2007 10:43PM

Boom, I'm perfectly content collecting strong AU coins, because many AU58's have so few marks they'd holder high MS. The TPG's will 62 the right AU in a heartbeat, and probably should, since they haven't decided to allow AU62. Slight rub, and strong luster, with minimal marks makes a nice coin. The AU 28 below holdered 62, and looks much nicer than most MS64's.

rhedden · July 1, 2007 10:49PM

The whole AU58 to MS63 grade range is a complete mess right now. The sad thing is that an otherwise gem coin with a little rub is graded lower (AU58) than a strictly Unc. coin with hits and scratches from mishandling at the mint or elsewhere. MS61-62 coins have therefore gotten a bad rap compared to AU58 coins. When properly graded, an MS61-62 should be a better coin than an AU58. After all, we are talking about mint state vs. circulated. However, the picture is confused by tons of awful, chewed up, scuffy, so-called "MS" coins in slabs that should be net-graded due to bag marks or contact marks, which are just as bad as, or worse than, circulation wear. If an MS-61 or MS62 graded coin is so badly bagmarked that nobody would want it for MS60 money, then it ought to be net graded to AU50 or lower. The grading services should fine-tune their approach to grading coins in this range so that the grades are consistent with eye appeal, which is what most people really care about.

ziggy29 · July 1, 2007 10:58PM

<< When properly graded, an MS61-62 should be a better coin than an AU58. After all, we are talking about mint state vs. circulated. >>

Is something necessarily a better coin because it's mint state and not with a trace of circulation? I don't think so. From a technical numerical grading standard, yes, but in terms of eye appeal and in terms of market valuation, not necessarily.

I know I'd rather have a PQ AU-58 coin which looks like a 66 with a trace of wear than a typical 61 in most cases. In truth that AU coin probably gets market graded MS, but from a technical grading standard it should be a 58.

mozeppa · July 1, 2007 11:07PM

I have a pcgs graded 1970-s doubled die #1 ....its a beautiful chocolate brown AU-58 coin.

less than 30 are known to exist...and...I paid way too much for it!

but now i'd not have it any other way!

i'll pix it and post later.

Boom · July 2, 2007 12:20AM

Nice coins. Ziggy, thanx. You said, in a very concise way, what I am going to hit on a little later.

Thanx, Don. That's a fabulous 58.

Here is mine and of course it DOES look considerably better in person than here, having shot the coin with the camera pointed straight down onto it using Macro and with it sitting 4 inches from the lens.

It's come to my attention that in trying to show coins' surfaces I have been "over exposing" so I'm having to try all sorts of new things that I certainly do not have down just yet.

The piece is very lustrous White and is a 34-D AU 58. I'll get back to you guys a little later.

RWB · July 2, 2007 12:35AM

A personal opinion, not backed up by research or documents, etc., is that because uncirculated coins are most easily categorized by the quantity and severity of marks, the lower grade uncirculated pieces – MS 60 through 62 – are usually coins that got shipped around a lot in bags. They clanked against other pieces and quickly acquired scrapes and nicks that are not visually appealing. (There are some old photos that show silver dollars being shoveled off a vault floor….)

However, if a coin was minted then entered circulation for a short period, it avoided much of the bulk handling abuse. Circulation is relatively benign compared to bagging and bulk shipping. Thus a typical AU 58 is a piece that was probably put into circulation soon after it was produced, then quickly withdrawn. Think of all the 1909-VDB cents, 1883 “V” nickels, 1913 Buffalos, 1916 Mercury dimes, 1921 Peace dollars, etc. that exist in virtually mark-free AU 58. Most probably got “circulated” in someone’s pocket for a day or two, then among some family members, finally being put away and forgotten.

Geoman · July 2, 2007 12:42AM

Interesting that this topic is brought up today, as I spent the evening Saturday with a fellow collector showing him my box of Morgan Dollars in 2x2's. He also brought out his Morgan Dollars, which where also in 2x2's and we compared and talked coins to midnight. What this collector thought was funny was when he would ask for my opinion on a grade, sometimes I would state it is either a AU-58 or MS-64. He thought that was quite the range of grades.

I told him it wasn't really a range, rather on some of his O-mint Morgans I couldn't decide if it was a weak strike, or a very slight rub. I explained if it was a weak strike, the coin grades MS-64 due to the lack of any significant hits with just a few minor ticks hide in the harders to see fields. However, if it is a slight rub instead of a weak strike, the coin would grade AU-58. So it really wasn't a "range" of grades because it the coin would not grade MS-61, MS-62 or MS-63; rather, it was either an AU-58 or a MS-64.

So I think an AU-58 can be just as eye appealing as a MS-64 or higher. In fact, I am collecting a Morgan Dollar set all in AU-58 for that reason, along with the price considerations.

Overdate · July 2, 2007 1:07AM

Maybe the market could use a grade that combines minimal wear (AU58) with high eye appeal (MS66 or better).

AU59, perhaps?

(My opinion only.)

ziggy29 · July 2, 2007 1:10AM

<< Maybe the market could use a grade that combines minimal wear (AU58) with high eye appeal (MS66 or better).

AU59, perhaps? >>

As long the market decides it wants to use numerical grades to price coins, I'd rather see some overlap in the AU and MS grades to acknowledge the well-established fact that the very nicest AU coins routinely sell for well into MS money. Instead of 59, we could see (for example) AU-60 through AU-63.

This would achieve the market grading desires of the marketplace AND prevent AU coins from being called MS.

Shamika · July 2, 2007 1:18AM

<< The way I see it, you take an MS69 coin and put the slightes rub on it and viola AU58. Now, that coin still looks MS69! >>

However, these coins are often given a market grade of 60, 61, 62, or 63 as opposed to AU58.

JoeLewis · July 2, 2007 1:29AM

<< 

<< Maybe the market could use a grade that combines minimal wear (AU58) with high eye appeal (MS66 or better).

AU59, perhaps? >>

As long the market decides it wants to use numerical grades to price coins, I'd rather see some overlap in the AU and MS grades to acknowledge the well-established fact that the very nicest AU coins routinely sell for well into MS money. Instead of 59, we could see (for example) AU-60 through AU-63.

This would achieve the market grading desires of the marketplace AND prevent AU coins from being called MS. >>

So like AU50, AU53, AU55, AU58, AU61, AU64?

tradedollarnut · July 2, 2007 1:31AM

I've long been a proponent of just skipping the AU or MS designation and giving the coin a number. Net grade rub just like any other post strike impairment.

ColonialCoinUnion · July 2, 2007 1:36AM

Here's some late breaking news:

Some AU58 coins are horrendous. And some are beautiful.

I am holding in my hand a beautiful, original coin we just received back from PCGS in an MS61 holder. Of course I have also seen some of the most hideous, awful, ugly coins in 61 slabs.

Substitute any grade, and I'm pretty sure we can find terrific and terrible examples.

In conclusion, I'd say that it's really pointless to generalize about what numerical grades are 'most eye appealing', because it just doesn't work that way.

IGWT · July 2, 2007 2:24AM

-- "I've long been a proponent of just skipping the AU or MS designation and giving the coin a number. Net grade rub just like any other post strike impairment." --

I believe that your argument has won the day in practice. In many cases, MS means nothing more than a net score better than a 58 regardless of rub, circulation wear, or other impairment. A grade of 60 -- and the correlative MS designation -- does not mark the boundary between circulated and uncirculated coins.

sfs2002usa · July 2, 2007 3:55AM

I have an 1917 Type I AU-58FH (ANACS) Standing Liberty Quarter. I really don't care a
bit about the grade. The coin is FANTASTIC !!!

ziggy29 · July 2, 2007 4:32AM

<< I have an 1917 Type I AU-58FH (ANACS) Standing Liberty Quarter. I really don't care a
bit about the grade. The coin is FANTASTIC !!! >>

I have one, too, but in a PCGS tomb:

JJM · July 2, 2007 5:03AM

I love strong AU material.........

BobGreene · July 2, 2007 5:32AM

<< 

<< I have an 1917 Type I AU-58FH (ANACS) Standing Liberty Quarter. I really don't care a
bit about the grade. The coin is FANTASTIC !!! >>

I have one, too, but in a PCGS tomb >>

I also have one in a PCGS holder, and I have yet to be able to locate any rub on the coin whatsoever; even under a microscope!

LeeG · July 2, 2007 6:12AM

It's all about eye appeal for me. I'm not stuck on the grade of a coin but the look and value for my dollar. I don't think you'll find a nicer 50 around than this one:

ARCO · July 2, 2007 6:45AM

Generally, you stand a much better chance of finding an AU58 that has better eye appeal than the same coin grading MS60-62. Low end MS coins are graded thus, precisely because they are dinged to hell, whereas an AU58 may or may not have such damage, but it must be graded lower because of slight wear or rub.

AU58's can be far superior to low end MS coins because it has wear and not necesarily damage, and secondly, the price is even lower than MS coins looking far worse. I don't think AU58 coins are the "prettiest around" because many do have problems. AU58's are not spared damage more than other coins statistically, but when one is found that looks MS64 or higher, and it is priced much much lower, then hell yes, you have a very pretty coin on many levels.

I love AU58 especially in gold, Barbers, Bust...well, most series actually.

Tyler

mirabela · July 2, 2007 7:04AM

Look, the most eye=appealing coins to me are usually gem MS ones. That said, the most eye-appealing coins I can *afford* are often choice AU ones, as they can be much nicer than lower MS coins and often cost less.

Still, more and more I enjoy collecting in series where I *can* buy choice, gem, and superb unc pieces.

Boom · July 2, 2007 1:09PM

BINGO!

Arco NAILED IT with this response:

<< Generally, you stand a much better chance of finding an AU58 that has better eye appeal than the same coin grading MS60-62. Low end MS coins are graded thus, precisely because they are dinged to hell, whereas an AU58 may or may not have such damage, but it must be graded lower because of slight wear or rub.

AU58's can be far superior to low end MS coins because it has wear and not necesarily damage, and secondly, the price is even lower than MS coins looking far worse. >>

There were many very good points raised here and to me, THIS sort of topic is what the US Coin Forum is all about.

The ONLY statement I TOTALLY disagreed with was the broad-based one about AU 58s being devoid of LUSTRE!

Nice going guys.

Feel free to continue if you please because I think threads like this benefit many collectors both young and Old.

ElKevvo · July 2, 2007 1:16PM

I totally agree...I like AU58 coins and have found some that I would put at MS but were graded AU58. I am working on an AU58 set of Walkers and I like the look of some of them better than a couple of the MS ones I have!

K

Boom · July 2, 2007 1:23PM

An accidental scuff etc can make an otherwise pristine coin AU 58 in a split second.

howards · July 2, 2007 5:06PM

<< A grade of 60 -- and the correlative MS designation -- does not mark the boundary between circulated and uncirculated coins. >>

Not any more, unfortunately. It used to, though. I think it is wrong that TPGs are putting coins with actual wear on them in 62 holders.

--------------

Properly graded nice AU58 coins are my favorite grade to buy. Nearly all of the look of an MS65 with none of that bothersome MS65 price.

FullStepJeffs · July 2, 2007 9:00PM

Because you can buy them for AU58 money!!!!

Steve

PerryHall · July 2, 2007 9:08PM

<< Because you can buy them for AU58 money!!!! >>

Agree. AU58 represents good value in many coin series where there is a big jump in price from AU58 to low end MS.

DHeath · July 2, 2007 9:45PM

Nice dime Lee. Love the Hallmark slab.

Boom · July 3, 2007 12:56AM

A picture is taking shape here. If one reads and takes the time to "digest" this latest exchange of words,

the general consensus has it that true collectors are interested in Beauty ... NOT #s on labels and given

1)- there are both beautiful and ugly 58s just as (2)- there are beautiful and ugly Superb Gems.

So the question NOW IS :

"Why do people sacrifice beautiful lower graded coins to replace them with higher grade pieces that are NOT AT ALL attractive AND at many times the cost?"

Would it be a reasonable assumption to say that such collectors are engrossed in the Registry COMPETITION and contrary to what their senses tell them they cast aside gorgeous coins for higher graded yet, in some instances, far less attractive pieces?

BUT WHAT ABOUT NON-REGISTRY PARTICIPANTS? IMHO, I doubt very seriously that this Group would ever do such a thing because they are not in "it" for the same reasons. They are

Opinions?

NumisOxide · July 3, 2007 2:39AM

I'm always searching for AU58 seated material but it's slim picking.

ziggy29 · July 3, 2007 2:43AM

<< Because you can buy them for AU58 money!!!! >>

Not consistently. At least not the best ones. Except for condition rarities, they tend to sell for closer to 62 money.

Fairlaneman · July 3, 2007 2:56AM

<< The ONLY statement I TOTALLY disagreed with was the broad-based one about AU 58s being devoid of LUSTRE! >>

Was that my statement ? No where was devoid used. Obviously if a AU58 coin had booming luster it more than likely would not be in the AU58 holder at all. Through the 25 years I have spent in the hobby I have never seen a AU58 coin with complete booming luster. Sure some AU58 coins are very nice and some are barkers from the word go. Its a good grade and sometimes bails a person out of the lack of bucks for a certain date. Heck I just bought a AU58 1919D Merc dime that I am waiting for. If it has complete booming luster I will come back to this thread and eat crow. Hows that ?

Cheers.

Ken

Are AU 58 coins among the most eye appealing and if so, WHY??

Comments

Leave a Comment